The Treaty of Versailles as a Cause of World War II

 

In November 1918, Germany and its allies were exhausted and surrendered, marking the end of the First World War (WWI). Among the many treaties made immediately after to govern world peace, was the treaty of Versailles signed in June 1919. The treaty of Versailles was significant in realizing the end of WWI. From the treaty, the League of Nations was formed to maintain world peace, make structures for world security, and encourage free trade. However, the treaty was controversial and created conflicting debates from the beginning. The most controversial part of the Treaty of Versailles was the “war guilt” clause that wanted Germany, together with the Central Powers, to admit to being the cause of WWI. With this admission of guilt, Germany lost 13% of its territory and international colonies, had its military force reduced, and was left paying reparations to the winning nation (Kim 2018, 13). Therefore, while the treaty of Versailles helped end WWI, it created problems that resulted in WWII, which was more severe in terms of the number of casualties and the effect on the world economy.


Different historians and authors have expressed their varying opinions about the Treaty of Versailles. Ewan Kim’s thesis in his article stated that the attempt of the few elite leaders to create peace through the treaty became the primary cause of WWII (Kim 2018). To prove his thesis, Ewan discusses a series of events leading to WWII that occurred due to the Treaty of Versailles. First, he argues that in a room comprised of the WWI victors only, a treaty was created to decide what peace would look like for the entire world. The countries that had lost the war, including Germany, were excluded from the conference. This was the first cause of resentment from Germany and other nations against the treaty as it created a face of revenge against Germany. To some, the treaty was not a representation of peace but instead an “armistice for twenty years” (Gerwarth 2021, 896). Secondly, Kim (2018) illustrates the greed for power, which affords different countries privileges that the less powerful lack. For instance, Germany was superior in weapons, military, and economic aspects, thus earning them 22 colonies. Having more colonies was an advantage because it availed more resources to the colonizers. Therefore, when Germany’s colonies and territory were taken away through the treaty, they were at risk of being scrapped from the list of the most powerful countries. The Treaty of Versailles embarrassed Germany and removed privileges the country had enjoyed for years. For this reason, the treaty was loathed across Germany, and most of its people protested against the “unfair treatment.” The need to be freed from the treaty led to the Nazi party’s growth. From 1928-1933, the Nazi party gained from 74.6% to 83.4% in the parliamentary elections (Kim 2018, 17). To regain their power and privileges, Germany invaded Poland in 1939, formally marking the beginning of WWII. This attack triggered France and the United Kingdom to declare war on Germany. Other countries joined later, with the entry of the United States making it a full-blown war.

Further, Kim states that in 1919, Japan pushed to include racial equality in the Treaty of Versailles, but the suggestions were declined. The country felt that the treaties following the end of WWI helped the westerners to gather more wealth and resources (Kim 2018, 10). Japan had long wanted to gather imperial power, so it invaded the Manchuria region of China to add to its colonies. The Japanese forces committed sexual crimes and massacred people for years without international retaliation (Kim 2018, 30). The US eventually cut off Japan from oil supplies in response. Japan retaliated by attacking Pearl Harbor, causing the US to declare war on them. This evidence supports Kim’s thesis because it clearly outlines the important events, values, and politics of the time. He outlines all the events he believes are connected to the treaty and extensively explains how they are connected. Therefore, the article showed a clear understanding of important elements of the countries’ history, values, and practices at the time of the issue.